pruning · Nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)
18 claims from these papers.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Effect of topping and irrigation on yield of flue-cured tobacco grown in a Mediterranean environment (1989)
no changeTopping did not influence leaf N, P and K contents.
Effects of apex regulation on the contents of potassium and nicotine in flue-cured tobacco (2009)decreaseTopping significantly decreased potassium in tobacco leaves by 7.8 %~20.1 %.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 9
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effects of apex regulation on the contents of potassium and nicotine in flue-cured tobacco · 2009
- positive
- negative
Effects of Topping on Main Chemical Components and Polyphenol Oxidase Activity in Flue-cured Tobacco · 2009
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of Different Topping Ways on Chemical Compositions in Upper Leaves of Flue-cured Tobacco · 2014
- positive
- positive
- negative
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3
Effect of topping and irrigation on yield of flue-cured tobacco grown in a Mediterranean environment · 1989
- no effect
[Effects of decapitation on growth, uptake and distribution of potassium in tobacco]. · 2002
- no effect
Effects of Topping Time on Precursor of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines in Flue-cured Tobacco · 2009
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.